Cops are ethically required to die to avoid violating rights

The more information that comes out about that cop who murdered the guy who came to his door holding a gun, the worse it shows the cop to be.

Everything about that incident is horrible. 

The cop was a coward (what a shock) and killed someone who wasn't even a threat to him. Even if the guy had been a threat, a cop is ethically required to die to avoid violating someone's rights. Don't like it? That's easy: Don't be a cop.

The cop knocked and hid from the peephole. Multiple times, He didn't adequately announce himself-- but even if he had it wouldn't have made a difference because in that case, it's either a badged thug or a freelance thug at your door, and both will murder you. It's a no-win situation for the good guy.

Then, worst of all, the badged parasite briefly caught a glimpse of someone doing something they had a right to be doing, in a place they had a right to be, and he shot that person to death because he was afraid.

That cop needs to be exposed.
He needs to be stripped of his position, blocked from ever collecting another cent of "tax" money or having any position of power over anyone, and any pension he might have collected needs to be given to the grieving survivors his cowardly act left behind. At a minimum.

Also, something about boiling tar and dirty feathers comes to mind, although that might be vengeful and I'm opposed to revenge,,. so...

There are no words to describe how utterly worthless that cop is. As well as all who are like him.
The same is true for those working tirelessly to lick the jackboots of cowardly, murderous legislation enforcers by making the case that seeing anyone who isn't a cop with a gun merits immediate death.

Cops are scum, and copsuckers are lower than scum.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Analyzing the world around us

I can't look at anything without analyzing it. I can look at and enjoy beautiful sights, but I am going to also analyze what I'm looking at. I may not always analyze it correctly-- that's a separate issue-- but my brain is going to be working on it. It seems to serve me fairly well.

To me, understanding something is part of the beauty of it. I realize not everyone has the same experience. I've even found some people who have the opposite reaction. 

For a couple of years now, my daughter has been wanting us to watch the TV series Young Sheldon together. A couple of days ago we finally got around to starting it. We weren't too far into the first episode when she said "Dad, that's you!"

Presumably, without taking into account his math skills.

Yes, I do see some similarities. Even some that are less than flattering. I can't argue that my mind isn't analytical, though.

It's why I'm not going to buy the justifications for the state that others want so hard to believe. In my analysis, the justifications don't hold up. 

It's why I'm not going to excuse a cop who goes to the wrong door and then murders the person who answers the door holding a gun.
It's why I don't automatically believe "climate change" is a crisis.
It's why I wasn't susceptible to COVID fearmongering.
It's why I think elections are always rigged, and it matters less than some might believe.
It's why I don't care where someone was born, only what they do.
It's why, many years ago, I gave serious consideration to the argument that "we" would be better off if guns were banned, and then utterly rejected that position in its entirety.

Since I can't look at the world without analyzing everything anyway, I might as well use it in a way that seems useful to me and gives some context to what's going on. If it also gets me closer to understanding reality, that's a bonus.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Fighting crime with crime?

The solution to crime isn’t more crime. It’s not more government, which is a criminal organization. It’s not more legislation, more stringent enforcement, more cops, harsher punishment. Raising "taxes" can't solve crime. All those things are crime in the real sense. 

Those things aren't going to make things better for the non-criminals among us.

I understand the concept of fighting fire with fire. This isn't that. 

This is "fighting fire" by burning all the firetrucks, dumping all the water into the ocean, and throwing all the firefighters down a well where they can't be of any use, while hiring more arsonists and nihilists and expecting them to make things better.

It's insanity.

The real solution to crime is liberty. It always has been and always will be. No matter how many career criminals claim otherwise.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Don't fall for government provocation

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for April 7, 2024)

Is government trying to provoke you? I believe it is. It's setting a trap.

If, by doing provocative things, government can trigger you into acting, your actions become an excuse to crack down harder- which will trigger more people to act. Like a feedback loop.

It's part of the reason for anti-gun legislation. It's part of the reason the two main factions of authoritarians love the fight over the issue of "immigration". It's why the real solution to crime is criminalized.

It's why government officials decided to paste a divisive new "holiday" over a traditional religious holiday, as if no other days were available-- a slap in the face to a significant number of believers. Doesn't this look calculated to anger and divide?

Government needs to divide the population; it needs excuses to destroy any remaining shreds of liberty. They do things to you, hoping to cause a reaction giving them the excuse they need. Don't hand them another 9/11.

You may believe I'm pretending to read their minds. No, I'm watching their actions. The effect is the same regardless of their inner thoughts. They do things which anger you; if you react, they have an excuse to cancel you from public life or even make you a political prisoner.

They want-- they need-- to get a reaction they can use against your remaining liberty. If you believe they wouldn't do this, you don't understand the history of political government and those who seek to use its power.

This doesn't mean you have to take it. It means being smart enough to know government is a failed system on borrowed time. No one has the right to govern another. Nothing can create this imaginary right. Going through the motions in spite of this tears society apart by destroying the lives of individuals.

The best solution is for you to stop supporting "your side" and stop complying with "their side". Don't go along. Withdraw all support for any politician or political theater. Ignore them as much as possible. Stop making them relevant to any part of your life, your opinions, or your economic future. Starve them out by making them irrelevant. You don't need to rebuke or renounce them-- they're not that important. If you can't walk away cold turkey, wean yourself. Grow liberty, not tyranny.

Whatever you do, don't get drawn into a fight which will only empower them. It's probably what they want most.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Just say "No" to government efficiency

“There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” ~ Peter Drucker  

Things such as v*ting, governing others, spending “tax” money, registering vehicles, writing legislation, etc. 

I don't want government to be more efficient. I don't want the IRS and its tax code to be more efficient. I don't want murder to be efficient and industrialized. I want everything government does to be difficult, expensive, complicated, messy, and screwed up. I don't want government to have a more efficient way of enslaving the population. I want them to be hated on the path to being eliminated.

I really don't understand those who advocate for government efficiency. If they mean to govern, I want it to hurt and inconvenience people enough that they will stop tolerating it. I want the population to want to get rid of the things that violate human rights, not make government work more smoothly on less money.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

In which I fail as a detective

This is a little morbid, but someone (not me) wanted to go to the park to see where those women were murdered last week. So that became Wednesday's field trip.

I followed the directions to the crime scene (from the public reports), knowing that people aren't generally great at compass directions and that sometimes "authorities" intentionally give incorrect information to misdirect people coming to gawk at a crime scene. (People like me, I suppose.)

The information from the cops said it happened 100 yards north of the pond closest to the entrance. It said the bodies were found beside a minivan. 

At the scene, I saw there was no way a minivan could have been north of that pond-- or even sort of north-- unless it was airlifted in. So, incorrect information. But which information is incorrect? Location? Or the presence of the minivan? Was it even this pond? There are 2 other ponds in the park (near roads), but they are considerably farther from the entrance. 

Working on the shakey assumption the pond indicated is the right pond, I scanned the area. 

About 100 yards directly west of that pond, right beside the road, where cars regularly park (I've parked there in the past), there was a strange spot in the dirt. The surface looked artificially "weathered". Completely different from any other surface conditions anywhere around, and different from any natural surface conditions I have ever seen in my extensive time outdoors.

A spot maybe 6 feet across looked scoured. Like high-pressure air-- coming from one direction-- had been used to blast away the top inch or two of dirt. It almost looked like pressurized water had been directed at the surface, but there was no run-off in the area beyond, where you would expect to see such a thing if water had been used. And there has been no rain here in the past week or three. Alternatively, the marks could have been made by a horizontally spinning brush like a vacuum cleaner brush.

I tried to search for information on how an outdoor dirt crime scene is cleaned of blood (probably not the best thing to search for-- Hi, NSA. For future reference, I don't murder people). I wasn't able to find any useful information before I stopped looking.

Do any of you know if either of these methods is used to clear away the dirt under and around a crime scene as a standard practice? I keep trying to think of any other explanation for the marks I saw in the dirt and I'm drawing a blank. This spot may have nothing to do with the crime, anyway. Maybe there's another reason someone scoured the ground in that spot. But why?

I have strained my eyes looking at the one photo (possibly from a drone) taken of the cops on the scene after the bodies were discovered and nothing adds up. It doesn't appear they are in the right location. Things are obviously not as reported. It may not have even been at this particular pond. After all, government lies. 

Also, I have never once had first-hand knowledge of an event which made the news that was, in my opinion, reported accurately. So there's that.

If you're interested, here's an update on the guy who was caught with the child taken from the scene.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Here's how to show your support.

Bag or Sack?

My opinion of Donald Trump is that he is an authoritarian, militaristic, anti-science, copsucking, tax-addicted, nationalistic, anti-gun bag of crap.

My opinion of Joe Biden is that he is an authoritarian, militaristic, anti-science, child-molesting, tax-addicted, racist, anti-gun sack of crap.

And people tell me I must choose between a sack or a bag? No, I don't. 

And I would never support anti-gun Robert F. Kennedy Jr., either.

Every v*te hurts. 

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

Limit your exposure

Exposure to statists and their insane notions can be bad for your mental health.

If those notions are put into action, they can kill you.

They think they are terribly enlightened. "Adult". Pragmatic. What they are is a disease of society. The more statists, the sicker the society. At some critical mass of statism, society ceases to be. All you're left with at that point is politics. The ideology of the stupid and/or evil.

Yes, I allowed myself to be exposed to too much statism over the past few minutes, and I'm feeling the ill effects. Time for an infusion of liberty.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Here's how to show your support.

Statism relies on ignore-ance

I'm sure you've seen it many times. 

A statist will ask what they believe is a gotcha question. The question is then answered fully, rationally, and completely, but instead of actually seeing the answer, the statist refuses to acknowledge an answer was given. At this point they either go into an endless time loop, asking the same question that has already been answered over and over again, repeating "why won't you answer the question?", or they'll pivot to something else they believe is a gotcha question. Studiously ignoring the answer that was provided in response to the original question.

Ignore-ance is willful ignorance. Carefully maintained by closing off reality when it is shown to them.

It's not something you'll cut through. It's something to pity. The good thing is, it's basically an admission that the statist understands-- on a subconscious level-- that they are wrong; on the loser side.

Without ignore-ance statism wouldn't last a day. Expect to see more of it as statism crumbles.

-

Thank you for reading.  

If you’d like, you can show your support.

How could this have been prevented?

Friday afternoon, the bodies of two women were found in a park I like to visit. One had been shot, the other's cause of death hasn't been released. A 5-year-old girl with serious injuries was found with them. Differing reports say the child might have been shot, beaten, or hit with a car. (They are now saying she was shot.) Also, her 10-month-old half-sister is missing. I'm hoping her body isn't in the nearby pond.

It might be unfair, but in cases like this, my first thought is always that they were probably involved in some activity, or with some individual, that led to this tragic outcome.

So far, in no local case I'm aware of, has this assumption proved to be wrong.

No, I'm not blaming the victims. I'm facing reality. They didn't deserve this, but their own choices might have played a part in it. In fact, it is almost guaranteed.

There have been times in my life when I knew I was around someone who wasn't good for me to be around, or when I found myself in social situations I knew could be dangerous for me. I usually got out of there quickly. Usually.

You can do a lot to increase your safety by staying away from certain people and situations. It's no guarantee, but it gives you better odds. 

It might have also helped had the women been adequately armed (which includes knowing how to use the arms). It certainly couldn't have made things worse for them, considering the outcome, regardless of the standard claims of anti-gun bigots.

The best way to use your keys for defense is to drive far away from bad people and dangerous situations. If that fails, you need a gun.

-

UPDATE: The baby has been found and taken to the hospital to be checked out, and a suspect is in custody.

-

Thank you for reading.  

If you’d like to show your support...

Blind loyalty not a trait I admire

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 31, 2024)

People admire different qualities in others. The traits each of us admires are shaped by our own values and experiences. What some see as a virtue, others see as a vice. Or worse.

It seems most people admire obedience-- they voice admiration for those who follow orders without hesitation. This isn't something I admire. Too much depends on who is giving the orders and what those orders are. This can include bad parents as well as people wearing uniforms or holding a political office. I can't excuse anyone for obeying when the orders are clearly evil.

History's worst atrocities weren't committed by the disobedient, but by those who thought obeying orders should be automatic. They were, and are, wrong.

Every order must be weighed against ethical behavior before being obeyed. A shout to "Duck!" is rarely going to have negative ethical consequences and stopping to think about it could be a problem, so you can make an exception there.

If you are obeying orders to violate life, liberty, or property-- such as an order to enforce illegitimate legislation-- then obedience is the opposite of doing the right thing. Disobedience is the only ethical path in this case.

The same could be said for loyalty. Whether loyalty is admirable or not depends on who or what you are being loyal to. Too many people are loyal to the wrong things and the wrong people. Their loyalty makes the world worse.

If you are being loyal to a group of rights violators, or to the other members of this group, your loyalty is a destructive force you are adding to the world. Being disloyal in this situation would be the right thing to do. This is nearly always going to apply to politics. Loyalty in politics shows you aren't thinking.

The only thing worse than the Republican Party is the Democratic Party. Sometimes it's the other way around. Neither party has earned your loyalty.

I notice both of these traits-- obedience and loyalty-- are encouraged by those who want to use people for their own purposes. When those purposes are political-- looking to violate life, liberty, or property-- the result is nearly always horrendous. At best, it's not helpful.

This is why I have never admired obedient order followers or those who express unconditional loyalty. I prefer those who can think, even when they cause a little bit of trouble by doing so.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

It boils down to this:

Liberty is non-negotiable.

-
Here are some of the best ways to help me

Wouldn’t you like to be a rebel, too?

 

The extreme confidence of the clueless

I’m less self-assured while carrying a gun than some people I know are when they imagine they’ll use their keys to defeat multiple attackers.

Why is this?

It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where the less competent someone is in a specific domain, the more they overestimate their abilities in that domain.

With some topics, it's just embarrassing (or should be), but in the domain of self-defense, it could be deadly. But there's no way to suggest this to the people I'm talking about-- they WILL NOT listen. Their self-assurance knows no limits.

I understand that having the proper tools is no guarantee.
That intentionally not having proper tools because you feel overconfident is handicapping yourself. 

Some people do this because they don't like guns and don't want to admit they might need one.
Others, because they imagine themselves to be ninjas with superhuman abilities who would never need something as crude as a gun to defend themselves from mere human thugs. Too many Marvel movies, perhaps.

It frustrates and worries me.

Even defense with a gun requires training.
To defend yourself with a less effective tool requires much more training. Intensive training.

The most confident people I’ve met “don’t need a gun”, and yet have no idea how to defend themselves with any tool. They think they know what to do from movies and television, or the fantasies created in their own minds. Bad guys will obviously back down in the face of their determination.

I wish there were a cure other than harsh reality.

-

Link to Voluntaryist- the comic series, from whence comes the illustration at the top of the post.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

When criminals die "in the act"

I don’t consider it a tragedy when criminals are killed in the act of archation. It’s probably the best outcome possible, under the circumstances. I'm including those legislation enforcers in North Carolina who were killed while committing the heinous crime of enforcing anti-gun legislation.

Only a copsucker could imagine it makes a difference whether a gang of home invaders-- kicking in a door to kidnap and rob, and with the intent to kill anyone who stands in their way-- have badges or not. Nope. It's the exact same picture.

I think every archator who is willing to use deadly force in the commission of his crime deserves to be killed in self-defense. Right where he stands.

But, "The Law!" When the "law" is illegitimate, enforcing it is a crime. An actual crime, like rape or murder; not a fake "crime" like possessing parts of a plant or owning/carrying any type of weapon you see fit against government's demands.

The North Carolina crime gang showed up at a house to enforce an illegal "law", completely prepared to murder the guy they were after. They did murder him, but it backfired and some of their gang bit the dust, too. Zero sympathy for crooks who die while committing crime.

When the cop in my local area was shot and killed after he stopped to help a stranded motorist, which is something he had a right to do, it was murder.

When a gang of cops is fired upon when they surround a house with the intention of committing crimes against the residents, something no one has a right to do, it is self-defense. Good riddance to bad trash. 

If this happened every time cops show up to enforce an anti-gun rule, it might cause fewer of these useful idiots to be willing to participate. That diseased herd could use culling.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Another pro-slavery artist

A local "artist" makes fabric gun art as a way to advocate for "common sense gun laws" [sic].

Why advocate for something that already exists? How could he have missed "shall not be infringed"? Or even Natural Law that says you have a right to defend yourself and no one has a "right" to prevent you from doing so?

Anything else is just a dishonest and cutesy way to demand a return of slavery. What kind of horrible person-- or misguided victim of lies-- would demand that?

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

If rights don't exist, neither does "wrong"

If rights don’t matter, or if rights don’t exist, then nothing you do to others can be wrong. Wrong means it violates someone’s rights.

Some say it’s not about rights, it’s about power. The power to do things to others. They usually say this to justify government actions that clearly violate individual rights (such as governing). 

But if this is true, it's true for freelance criminals as well. 

If you justify government this way, why claim a rapist is doing anything wrong? How could anyone make that claim? If there are no rights to be violated, by what basis can anyone say he shouldn't do what he's doing? He has power and is using it— and I hope his intended victim has the power to stop him. Permanently.

Saying rights don't exist, or don't matter because they are just a mental construct, is dumb and is setting yourself up for a really bad end.

People who don’t “believe in” rights had better watch their backtrails. Those who believe them might act on the belief.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Not taking the smallest step

People just don’t think like I do. I’m not sure whether that’s good or bad.

My daughter was leaving the house. She had to run back in and blow her runny nose- I told her to put a bunch of Kleenexes in her pocket for later. She didn’t. I asked why she didn’t and she said she can just go to the restroom to blow her nose. Yes, but...

I don’t understand not wanting to be prepared.

Yet, she’s not the only one. All my life I’ve noticed that most people would rather wing it; take their chances. They'll avoid doing something simple, easy. and free to avert a problem just because they think they can deal with the problem later.

Maybe they can. 

Often, however, they act surprised when this lack of preparedness causes trouble. Yet, they never apply this lesson to next time. Why? And why not listen when someone gives a suggestion that could avert problems and isn't even inconvenient? I really don't get it.

It's in the same category as "I don't like/don't wear hats". I see it as "I like causing problems for myself".

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

If I were rich...

What would I do if  I woke up tomorrow and discovered I had become rich? I've probably given this more thought than the "possibility" warrants.

But here's what I would do:

Pay off my medical bills.

Schedule my cataract surgery.

Buy my parents' house, put all the bills in my name, and let them stay there for the rest of their lives.

Have all the porch cats taken to the vet to be treated and spayed/neutered, then either placed in homes or released back where they live now (depending on their willingness to tolerate indoor life). Or, maybe build a sheltered facility where the more feral ones can live in safety without too much human interference.

Make donations to cat rescue groups and encourage, with bonus donations, some group to cover this area.

Send a couple of cases of premium ammo to a friend who just bought his first gun.

I have a short list of liberty advocates I would fund, and a few friends I would help.

Pay off my house.

Get a Cybertruck with the solar panel option.

Half-joking- I would never wear a pair of socks twice. I'd buy new socks, wear them once, then donate them to a homeless assistance group to wash and distribute as they see fit.

Sure, I would probably want to move into a better off-grid house, on acreage, which means I would need lots more ammo. I might (OK, would) buy more guns. But those things would have to wait until I take care of the things on the list.

What would you do?

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Politics opposite of what I try to do

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 24, 2024)

About the most hurtful thing anyone can say about me is to describe my writing as "political". It wounds me more deeply than almost any other words can.

Politics is what someone is doing when they encourage others to vote for or against something. Or someone.

Politics is what people engage in when they advocate yet another law aimed at the rest of society or want existing laws enforced more violently.

Politics says this politician will be better at running your life than some opposing team's politician. It leaves you out of the conversation, even though you are the only one with any right to control your life.

Politics is deciding how to divide the government's plunder-- taxes-- and how to most effectively violate the rights of your neighbors, friends, family, and even your grandchildren years into the future.

Politics never recognizes your sovereignty. Its advocates have made "sovereignty" a dirty word, except when applied to political criminals and the gang they work for. They claim these entities have sovereignty; you don't. This is utterly ridiculous because without sovereignty there's no way you could authorize anyone else to govern you.

Please don't misunderstand me. The claim of so-called "sovereign citizens" is equally ridiculous-- you can be one or the other, but not both.

Politics is the opposite of what I'm trying to do.

I encourage you to take responsibility for your own life. To do what's right without being forced to do it by government employees, and to do the right thing even when government employees threaten to hurt you if you do.

I try to show you that you aren't someone else's property. Government doesn't own you, even if it forces its tracking numbers on you and your children. This is a tactic of desperation; government hopes you don't realize this.

I remind you that liberty is your birthright, and government-- even the "best" government-- is the sworn enemy of liberty and your natural human rights.

If I were political I would be lying to you; telling you how to fix government. Telling you some politician or another has your best interests in mind. That he or she will defend your rights (while violating the rights of people you don't like with legislation and enforcement). I would be trying to prop up the outdated belief that government is a "necessary evil", rather than just evil.

Me, political? Never!

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Reasons government is illegitimate

One of the many things I despise about government is that you and I are expected to abide by the arbitrary rules it makes up and enforces on us, but it refuses to be bound by the rules which apply to it.

This is a clear sign that a police state is what we are living in.

That’s simply not going to fly.

You and I have rights; government has none.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

It's OK to be honest

Even if something is "just the way it is", and unlikely to change, it’s OK to point out when it’s wrong. 

Admitting it’s wrong doesn’t obligate you to change it.
It doesn’t implicate you if you’re a victim. 

If something is wrong, just say it. Don’t lie for the bad guy.

I've seen so many people reluctant to do this. They'll make excuses even while suffering. 

I had someone doing this while talking to me a couple of days ago. Even fighting to defend something they clearly knew was wrong, just because "that's just how it is". 
It's nuts!

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Government going too far

Do you ever wonder if government will ever go too far? Far enough that it loses the support of most of the (normally apathetic) public like it has lost mine (and presumably yours)?

I do.

I also wonder what "too far" would look like. What would it take?
And what response would it trigger?

I've seen apathetic people get riled up over one or more of the hoaxes perpetrated by the media in the last few years. But they don't usually stay riled up for long. I'm not sure if this is because the hoaxes don't pan out the way they are dramatized, or if it's just too much trouble to keep thinking about it.

What would it take-- either real or a hoax-- to get enough people angry enough to do something? Not to just v*te for "the other guy", but to do something useful? To either withdraw "consent" in a meaningful way or to yank the pedestal out from under Colossus?

I have no idea. But it could be interesting to watch.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Governing "a moral people" is unethical

Those who insist that the answer to everything is "morality" sort of amuse me.

Yes, if "moral" meant the same to everyone, that could fix a lot of problems. If everyone agrees on the baseline, then it's going to work even if some people break the rules.

But morality is situational ethics-- it depends on your culture, religion, and experiences. So no one even agrees what's moral-- which is why they'd rather appeal to morality than ethics, except when they use the word "ethics" when talking about "morality" (which I see a lot).

The Constitution only works to govern "a moral people", but governing others is unethical. You can't force an unethical system on people, then claim it fails because the people aren't moral enough. And, by "moral" I suppose you'd mean they don't agree with your cultural/religious notions of how everyone else is to be governed. Well, you can claim that, but you'd look dumb.

If your idea of "moral" is that everyone submit to political "authority" and pretend it's legitimate, then I absolutely reject your morality. I'll stick to being ethical instead.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Those who love Big Brother

Big, powerful government isn’t your friend. It's not your benefactor. It's incompatible with liberty.

It's evil.

It doesn’t make you safe. It enslaves you. It robs you. It may kill you.
It doesn't help you.
It does help political criminals-- both the regular politician-type and the Deep State parasites of the "intelligence" agencies (they are not on your side).

Wanting to fund such government is not ethical.
Wanting to further empower such government is monstrous.
Supporting such government in any way is horrible.

If you believe otherwise, you may be a government supremacist. Go in peace... but go. Maybe North Korea or China would suit you better.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Silliness: When the other shoe drops

Which will lose enough True Believers to fall out of favor first? Climate Crisis or government?

I'm betting on Climate Crisis losing its hold on people's minds first. Too many gullible people still cling to the backward cult of Statism.

I shake my head in disbelief whenever I hear someone "thinking past the sale" on AGCC (Anthropogenic Global Climate Change). They've largely overshot the target. Rather than discussing the possibility of climate change, they are trying to make everyone believe it's a proven crisis. Impending doom and disaster. And that's where they lost me.

Climate changes and will never stop changing. A static climate might not even be good. I am fully willing to consider that humans might be able to affect the planet's climate. Might. 

But, I am not convinced that if it is real it would be a guaranteed net negative, that it could be stopped now, or that stopping it wouldn't be worse than adapting to it. Treating it like a disaster is jumping to conclusions-- conclusions that just happen to align with what the authoritarian control freaks want to do to you.

I am not stupid enough to believe that more government control is the right answer to any problem. Government-- the worst environmental disaster since at least the asteroid that killed off the non-avian dinosaurs; maybe ever!-- is going to save us all from climate change? Ha!

It's not a foregone conclusion that every bad weather event, every new disease, or every novel phenomenon is due to "climate change". But that's what they are trying to sell. It's just dumb.

Yes, belief in government is just as ridiculous, but it has deeper roots. Even people who are skeptical about the scams being sold by government are still likely to believe government is necessary. It's an absurd belief, but it's going to take time for enough of them to see it for what it is.

So, expect the Climate Change narrative to collapse in your lifetime. And rest assured that government will follow. It may just take a little longer.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Politicians just don't get Bill of Rights

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 17, 2024)

Politicians tend to get every answer wrong. They also ask the wrong questions because they view everything through the warped lens of government supremacy.

Texas representative Dan Crenshaw is a prime example. Politicians are squaring off for or against TikTok, an addictive digital drug from China. Some, including Crenshaw, are looking to ban TikTok in America or force it to become an American company. Like the other digital drug, Facebook..

TikTok can be harmful to the mental health of vulnerable people; it manipulates their minds in ways that are not good for the individuals or for society. It promotes toxic political ideologies and spreads destructive social contagions among young people. It's probably no worse than other antisocial social media. However, as a company based in China, it's subject to the control of the Chinese Communist Party-- a group which doesn't have your best interests in mind.

Do I think this is a problem? Yes. Do I think government should ban it? No.

Crenshaw opposes any objection on First Amendment grounds as he explained on the X platform."You’re not defending the First Amendment. Our First Amendment doesn’t apply to the CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY." In typical political fashion, he is both right and wrong.

Politicians don't understand the Bill of Rights. They continuously argue over who it applies to-- or doesn't-- and completely miss the only entity it does apply to. The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, only applies to the US federal government. It forbids this government from banning speech. Even speech controlled by enemies. There's no wiggle room in there, even if government employees keep hallucinating some.

Until politicians face this inconvenient reality, they'll keep getting the wrong answer to every wrong question. Especially if the question concerns what their job allows them to do.

Politicians seek government jobs because they lust for power. Power over your life. Power they have no right to possess. They'll misinterpret every question in whichever way gives them this power. They'll miss the correct answer because it would not allow them to run your life as they wrongly believe they have the right to do.

Any time any politician states that some amendment in the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to someone, agree with them. Then remind them they work for the only institution the Bill of Rights does apply to-- by removing its option to do most things politicians hunger to do.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Once you see it…

…You see it everywhere.

I’m talking about all the problems people obsess over that have one core cause: government.

I’ve written about it many times, so no need to rehash it here.

I see it everywhere, from just about everyone. They see some of the problems (the ones that bother them), and they are resigned to the problems being unsolvable. Or they suggest approaches that will make it worse. All because they can't let go of the cause.

I suppose you could point out that the root cause is actually archation, but then I'd point out that archation has a known solution: defense. And I'd also point out that government is institutionalized and "acceptable" archation, which is said to be above any "violent" solution. Defending yourself from government is said to be wrong. (It isn't, but it may sometimes be unwise.)

So, the solution to all the problems they dwell on is off the table.

They'd much rather thrash at the branches (or the shadows of the leaves) than dig out the diseased root. That's how captured their brains are. They can't even see how silly they look.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Non-rights: IP, corporate "rights", and government "rights"

There are a lot of weird notions about "rights" out there, causing a lot of problems.

"Intellectual property" (IP) is one.
The idea that corporations can have property rights is another.
The grand delusion that governments can have rights of any kind is possibly the most damaging weird notion of all.

Intellectual property? It's an economically useful idea, but it isn't true.
Thoughts are your property as long as you don't share them with anyone. Once you let the thought out of your brain, you can't control it, and if you can't control something, you don't really own it. You can ask government to punish others for being exposed to your idea and integrating it into themselves, but that's sick. The same goes for using government to regulate AI's programmer's use of the ideas of others. If you don't want your idea-- your brainwork-- out influencing the world or informing AI, keep it to yourself.

As someone who comes up with ideas and releases them into the public sphere, I would love for those ideas to make money for me. I kind of need for them to do so. I know it would be wrong of me to use government as a way to force others to pay me for using my ideas, or to use government to "protect" those ideas. If I don't want my ideas to spread, I can keep them to myself. (You should see all the adaptations/uses of the Time's Up flag I've run across over the years- some promoting downright anti-liberty messages.)

Corporate "rights" are similar to IP "rights", as in they can't make sense unless you are in a hallucination. They are also economically useful-- to a segment of the population, anyway.

Rights are individual. Human individuals have rights. Groups (of humans) have no rights. A corporation is a group of individuals, defined by government, and treated as though it were an individual by that government. None of this changes reality or creates rights. Each individual who is a part of the corporation has equal and identical rights to every other individual, but no more. There's no such thing as extra rights. (Cops' superstitions notwithstanding.)

If a corporation's individuals try to insist on having government enforce its IP rights, this is such a stack of lie upon lie that it is hard to see what's even going on. Other than lots of "someones" pretending that things that aren't rights are. It's a very government-supremacist way to operate.

What about the insane claim that government has a right to do anything?

Governments are groups. As such, governments can't have rights. They have no right to make up and enforce imaginary "rights" for other collectives which can have no rights. They have no right to do things to individuals based on protecting the "right" of government to do anything to anyone for any reason. There is no such thing, and there can be no such thing, as a "right" to violate the rights of individuals. Government has no property rights. Government is not alive and therefore has no right to live. Government has no right to exist or to act. 

To violate individual rights is evil. To violate individual rights based on some crazy notion of "rights" that can't exist is both evil and crazy. To begin to truly respect individual rights would eliminate any perceived "necessity" for these silly non-rights. Which is why government tries so hard to prevent it.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

The squatter problem

Squatting. It's generally not a real problem because people have always known what to do when someone tries to steal their property by occupying it. It only looks like a problem now because the Prime Squatter doesn't want you defending your property from squatters. 

Government is the ultimate squatter; the Prime Squatter. 

You can’t trespass on "government property" because government owns nothing, but squats everywhere. And murders the rightful owners. Or imprisons them.

Since government-- as the Prime Squatter-- doesn't want to be kicked out it doesn't want you kicking out other squatters lest you get ideas. Birds of a feather flock together... and have each other's backs.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Did I once trust government?

The other day I asked who was ever dumb enough to trust government. But, to be honest, I'm sure at some point I must have trusted it. At least a little. I just can't remember that time.

What I do remember is each time what little trust I had crumbled a bit more. For it to crumble, it must have existed. Right? 

I even remember once wondering to myself whether government might be right and guns should be controlled! I think the thought might have lingered for up to 5 minutes in my young adult mind before rationality snuffed it out. Fits of insanity are probably common, but shouldn't be the foundation for a worldview. (Hoggbreath ought to pay attention, but he won't.)

My earliest memories of realizing that government existed were "That doesn't seem right". This conviction has only grown stronger the longer I live.

Maybe an instinct for liberty is inherent in some people and an instinct for slavery... I mean "safety and security"... is inherent in others. If so, I know which one I was born with, and I can't really wrap my brain around the other one.

If I ever had any trust in government, it is long gone. Swept away by the tides of reality.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Welcome to the Asylum

From my perspective, it looks like society has been largely replaced by a carnival of mental illness. We are all treading water in a sea of mental illness made worse by a political hurricane.

I know some experts have been saying there's no such thing as mental illness. OK, call it whatever you want to call it. It's obvious something harmful is going on.

It looks to me like people's brains aren't working. It's causing problems for them, and they won't rest until it engulfs everyone else, too. Misery loves company.

It's not just politics, although it has political implications as long as politics infests society.
It's not just a difference in preferences. 

It's more like insisting leprechauns are running the world, making that the central premise of your life, and attacking (canceling, imprisoning) anyone who doesn't believe the same. A simple preference isn't this crazy. These people look like they are.

But, if I were mentally ill, maybe that's how I would see those who have it all together. Maybe their leprechauns are real after all and I'm the one with the problem since I believe I know they aren't. How do I know it's not me who's mentally ill? Along with those who agree with me.

One thing I notice is that those I see as having a mental problem are consistently angry, anxious, and depressed. They are looking for problems to embrace as their own, to get some sort of social cred. Their brains are harming them. 

Then, they want to use politics to impose their problems on everyone else.

There are times I feel angry, anxious, and depressed, too. When I do, I don't go looking for more problems to add to the pile. I wouldn't feel better by finding more labels; more victimhood.

I don't tend to blame everyone else when I feel bad. I blame myself or I blame circumstances (stupid cataract!). 

Those I see as being mentally ill blame me, want to force me to go along with them, and lose their minds when I don't. They are dangerous to anyone who doesn't see/feel what they do. When they have political power, they'll actually kick in doors and murder people in their own homes, just because they can get away with it.

An obvious implication of this is that no one should have power over the lives of others. It's too dangerous to allow.

As things stand, there can be no middle ground. No compromise is possible unless they'll stay out of my life and stop trying to govern-- and they don't seem to even be able to consider this suggestion. They must have their way, or else.

As long as "the majority" pretends government is legitimate, inevitable, and necessary, things probably won't get any better. The mentally ill among us will continue to make dangerous pests of themselves.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

Who was ever dumb enough to trust it?

Is it “a shame” that people are losing trust in government?

I don’t think so. No more than if people were losing trust in Zeus, in voodoo, or in rabies. 

Trust is earned, not owed. 

When something or someone demonstrates time after time, for thousands of years in an unbroken chain, that it can't be trusted, what kind of fool would think it's a shame that people stop trusting it?

It's not a shame that people are wising up and losing trust in government.

But government supremacists may think it's a shame. Their deity is losing power as people stop trusting it, or acting as though it is real.

I consider it a shame anyone was ever gullible enough to trust government in the first place. It’s time humans grow up and lose that infantile trust. 

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me

New laws aren't ethical solution

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for March 10, 2024)

"There ought to be a law." I am disappointed every time I hear that sad phrase. It's an admission of failure-- both intellectual and ethical.

If the only solution someone can see is to call for more government violence-- through legislation-- either they aren't thinking clearly, or their ethical core is broken. Either way, it's a problem.

Many times when I hear someone say this phrase, there is no real crisis, only something they don't like. This is a problem, not with the world, but within the person calling for yet another law.

Every law is another crank of the ratchet against human flourishing. Laws transfer power from you, where it belongs, to the state. Government has shown, throughout its long, bloody history, that it can not be trusted with power. It's the least trustworthy institution ever created. It is the last gang you want to entrust with your life, liberty, or property.

It's not a problem with government corruption. Governments aren't corrupt, they are doing what they are designed to do. When you like it, you praise it. When you don't like it, you call it "corruption". No one calls the mafia corrupt when it does things the mafia is designed to do, so why change the rule when it applies the same way to government?

Government is designed to steal your liberty, to violate your rights, to take your property, and to use you and your children for fuel to power its growth. Everything you might call corruption is built in-- you just don't notice it when it doesn't bother you, or is moving in a direction you like. It's still an evil thing.

Why would you send this great evil after your family, friends, and neighbors-- now and into the distant future?

This is what you are doing if you ask government to make up and enforce yet another law against your fellow humans. It's antisocial, selfish, and short-sighted.

Every real problem has an ethical solution. A solution which involves respecting life, liberty, and property. A solution which never involves sending government after someone. If a solution requires violating someone's natural human rights, the problem is probably imaginary. If it's real, this solution is worse than the problem.

Never fall into the trap of saying "There ought to be a law". It's a tar pit. Who will pull you out after you've sent "the law" to get them all?

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

“If you could have only one gun…”

I would keep more than one gun, anyway.

What does “could have” mean? 

Does it mean the Rulers say it’s not allowed? They aren’t going to stop at limiting you to one. Next, they'll say the allowed number is zero. Ignore and defy them.

Does it mean I’m nomadic and too weak to carry two guns? Then I’m too weak to carry ammo so I’m doomed anyway. I’ll keep multiple guns and dig in.

Does it mean I had to trade all the other guns for water? Why not trade game meat instead? Or trade security services? 

Does it mean I migrated to Mars and the weight limit for the trip kept me from carrying more than one? Keep two lighter-weight guns. Again, ammo is going to be the real problem here.

I think "if you could have only one gun" is meaningless except as a way to decide which gun is your favorite. If it's your favorite you'll find a way to justify keeping that one.

-

Here are some of the best ways to help me